Outa to appeal e-toll judgment

So those that say they will force e-tolling in other parts of the country, riddle me this

So if we take on a national levy for these roads, it doesn't mean they will stop and not build road elsewhere. Tolls or Levy, by the logic they will build more and they will require some method to pay those roads off. The WC N1 levy... then EC Levy... and so on and so forth. It wont be 20c a litre... it's be 40c including WC, then 60c to include EC (hey, we share the cost remember?).

Ultimately what it will because is an invisible toll you pay even if you don't use those roads. They'll be getting their corrupt hands on the money ANYWAY, only difference is now you can't even avoid (or even not pay) the tolls.

It's not a 'winning' solution.

The original fuel levy is there for this stuff, we can't go about putting levies on specific pieces of road development debt. As soon as we do that, then SANRAL has every reason to exploit this "per road" going forward. Imagine Zuma wants a highway from his palace to the local shop. Well, SANRAL will build the road at a cost of billions, and because everyone is so keen to share the cost in a fuel levy... we'll all pay for it.
 
2012 said:
So those that say they will force e-tolling in other parts of the country, riddle me this

So if we take on a national levy for these roads, it doesn't mean they will stop and not build road elsewhere. Tolls or Levy, by the logic they will build more and they will require some method to pay those roads off. The WC N1 levy... then EC Levy... and so on and so forth. It wont be 20c a litre... it's be 40c including WC, then 60c to include EC (hey, we share the cost remember?).

Ultimately what it will because is an invisible toll you pay even if you don't use those roads. They'll be getting their corrupt hands on the money ANYWAY, only difference is now you can't even avoid (or even not pay) the tolls.

It's not a 'winning' solution.

The original fuel levy is there for this stuff, we can't go about putting levies on specific pieces of road development debt. As soon as we do that, then SANRAL has every reason to exploit this "per road" going forward. Imagine Zuma wants a highway from his palace to the local shop. Well, SANRAL will build the road at a cost of billions, and because everyone is so keen to share the cost in a fuel levy... we'll all pay for it.
Click to expand...

The biggest difference ... a fuel levy will not take R15bn to collect. The toll system (not the roads), cost that much, according to some estimates. So we have to pay cost of roads + cost of toll system + cost of non-payers + postal fees for notices + court costs + bribes + ...
 
R13... said:
One of them made a comment that they won't tear down the tolls like the government did the houses in Lenasia. That was all. It was all about the tolls.
Click to expand...

http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/cosatu-set-to-kick-off-e-toll-protests-1.1432573
The build-up to the “mother of all battles” will begin tomorrow when Cosatu members gather at Mary Fitzgerald Square in Newtown, Joburg.

The planned march is a protest action against e-tolls and the housing crisis in Lenasia. It will begin at 9am.
Click to expand...
 
DJ... said:
A hybrid model based on various metrics already recorded by the department and Econometrix (who record and collate all vehicle sales). If you link the MBUF contribution to a median per car costing, you can subsidise the difference with the fuel levy and have marginal impact. You then review this costing balance on an annual basis linked to the number of hybrid and low-impact vehicles entering the market in the relevant areas, and actual data recorded by the systems over the course of the year. It is then linked to a more realistic actual costing that is transparent to the market, who therefore cannot complain when prices go up. This requires financial transparency on Sanral's part though, which is why they would object to this method.

My proposed method would mean that you'd pay per kilometre, but this payment would be quite minimal. Put basically, the shortfall based on MBUF, which can be easily forecast if you do the initial calculations, will be made up in the fuel levy. The fuel levy contribution will then reduce as more hybrids and efficient vehicles enter the market (a direct correlation and such an algorithm would take a week to put together), reviewed on an annual basis, incorporating data recorded over the year, which will give them even more accurate costings, based on actual usage.

This is the smart way to do things. They've gone for the shotgun approach, which in an ordinary business would 9 time out of 10, fail them. Unless of course you are a private company whose sole shareholder is government. In which case you can simply force this shotgun method on users. Sanral's method is the kind of strategy and recovery method that could only be dreamed up by a high school dropout...
Click to expand...

Does OUTA know about this?
 
Fudzy said:
So you don't think something like this could be voted on?
Click to expand...

Voted? What vote?
BTW, we're too far down the line for my proposal to work in any case. It would have had to have formed a part of the initial plans...
 
DJ... said:
Voted? What vote?
BTW, we're too far down the line for my proposal to work in any case. It would have had to have formed a part of the initial plans...
Click to expand...

Well how are proposals accepted then?
 
Fudzy said:
Well how are proposals accepted then?
Click to expand...

They should have put the whole e-tolling thing to a Provincial Referendum Vote years ago. And SANRAL may actually have won that referendum if they had done it back then. But it's far too late now.
 
Fudzy said:
Well how are proposals accepted then?
Click to expand...

To who? Outa? They have a committee who will approve their course of action but that's made up of lawyers and accountants and their internal proposals. Not sure you can simply submit a proposal. If you're talking about SANRAL, well then the process is to bend over, lube up, and hope he's jewish...
 
DJ... said:
To who? Outa? They have a committee who will approve their course of action but that's made up of lawyers and accountants and their internal proposals. Not sure you can simply submit a proposal. If you're talking about SANRAL, well then the process is to bend over, lube up, and hope he's jewish...
Click to expand...

Lol! Eloquently answered.
 
kidcolt said:
I cannot speak on behalf of OUTA, but in general the people proposing a National fuel are not proposing that the WP road users should pay for the upgraded Gauteng roads. Instead we realize that there are current cost for the upgraded roads in Gauteng and future cost for the desperately need upcoming upgrades in WP, KZN, and EC and pretty much everywhere else that there is a MASSIVE backlog of road maintenance. What we want is to make sure that those costs are settle in the most efficient manner possible, with the least possible out of pocket cost to us ALL !! And that it would be nice to possible fixing the missing ring fencing around the current fuel levies, which has in part resulted in us being in this situation. As the fuel levy (to my understanding) currently goes in to the national treasury, we have no idea how much of our road maintenance money is being used to upgrade certain ‘houses’ instead of fixing roads.

Simply said... I do not want the people in the WP to pay for roads in the province where I live, rather I want us in SA to paid for OUR combine road upgrades which WILL be taking place. I.E. You pay for your provinces road upgrades that are coming and for me to my provinces road work which has been completed... But that we paid for it in the most cost effective collective manner where we do not all individual get ridden with inflated cost because we are so busy shouting at each other to stay off their grass.

How else did you think that the national roads overhaul that government wants to do as part in their multi-billion rand infrastructure overhaul / job creation that they are talking about is going to be paid for... the President clear stated that not all of the money would be coming from the fiscus. The majority of it will be coming directly from our pocket via their preferred E-tolling, and other methods of collection for other parts of the overhaul. And while I sure we all understand the need to invest in the countries future with an infrastructure overhaul. Should we the people that are going to pay for this overhaul, not at less try to make sure it is done in the most efficient manner with the less wastage of our money?

Once you realize the scope of the coming costs that we will all need to carry it is very simple maths to calculate the cost-saving of centralized fee collection versus distributed collection... Which I suppose I could elaborate if does not jump out at you the overhead cost of one company trying to track, support, and liaise with EVERY road user in the country. We are talking about setting up a new ‘company’ with almost similarly size and cost to SARS, instead of just using the current efficient distributed system that does not require additional tracking/support/specialized liaising/law enforcement/justice enforcement/device manufacture/device support/device replacement/call centers/social burden/gantry support/gantry maintenance/it systems/additional bank transact fees/process changes/changes in law/etc/etc... All of which are required costs which still excludes the ‘inflated cost’ as are un-separately from this system.

Again... the push against e-tolls is not a case of Gauteng road users wanting everyone to subsidise local roads. We are not opponents in this case like you continuously state, but allies in protecting our collective interests.
Click to expand...

Another informative post. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X